Read this while on vacation. Luckily this particular edition came with definitions for most arcane words and phrases used. If I had not have had this the book would have been fairly unintelligible. Overall, even with definitions this book was just “pretty good”. This might be because it is not written as a book but as a play. So much of the weight of what is happening is only as heavy as your imagination can make it. Living in the TV era I can hardly imagine anything, it left me mostly in the dark. With that being said I was still able to piece together that action and character development of the story. The language and metaphors in the book are truly Shakespearian (pause for chuckles). But really the word play is masterful and renders emotions in high dynamic range. The thing that struck me most about this story was that it had many parallels to the movie Scarface. I was not expecting that connection. Some great quotes in this book to be sure.

Not much to say about this one. I picked it because I wanted to read something lighter. Published in 1988 by a Brazilian author this is a short story about a shepherd boy in Spain that has a dream that recurs to him about a treasure near the pyramids. This launches the boy into a quest to find it where he encounters many interesting characters and learns “life lessons”. The two main points of this book are that each person has their own “personal legend” (or dharma) and that the secret to happiness is in pursuit of your personal legend. The second point is “when you really want something to happen, the whole universe will conspire so that your wish comes true”. Overall, it was pretty good, I wanted something lighter and maybe overshot. This would probably be very interesting reading for a small little, tiny man child.

This book is a short story that focuses mostly on the last few days of Ivan Ilyich. Ivan is a judge in high court. Tolstoy briefly gives a bird’s eye view of his life by describing it as neither as cold and formal as his elder brother nor as wild as the younger, but was a happy mean between them an intelligent, polished, lively, and agreeable man. Ivan took great pains to structure his life to be described just in that way. The Radiohead song “everything in its right place” comes to mind. Climbing the social ladder and making all his decisions based on what was most “decorous”, Ivan is struck down by an unforeseen terminal illness and spends his last days introspectively considering the life he’s lived. He feels like he doesn’t deserve sickness he has been afflicted with because he views his life as being lived well. This book articulates most people’s worst fear, which is living your entire life but only at the end of it having the clarity to see it was mostly a sham. I think everyone considers their own life. Some people more than others, but no matter how much you do consider it one thing is true. You will never be able to manufacture the clarity of the final which you will be faced with on your death bed. This book, like other Russian books, places emphasis on living truthfully. The alternative is spiritual death. This book has really funked with the headspace for which I am thankful. This book was written later in Tolstoy’s life, and many translate it as his own struggle with the reality of death which can be summed up in this quote: ...

Written in 1903 the book opens with W.E.B Du Bois central thesis that “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line.” This book is a collection of essays that lays out Du Bois’ views on race relations. Poetically written and very moving at times. The essays cover a variety of topics ranging from black farmers in a post-civil war south, the death of his first child and his views on education. What is most surprising to me about reading this book is that although many of the things he fought for (i.e allowing black people in universities, general equal rights) have been accomplished many of his issues with race relation still remain unmoved. This is also interesting because in an early chapter he likened the bill of emancipation to a “promise land” or “second coming” for the black folk who had been waiting on it for so long. But when they got it, it didn’t solve the problem. They instead realized that the power to be free lied in being able to vote. So, then they pushed towards that goal. Achieving that and still finding themselves not free. It seems like you are only as “free” as everyone that is around you thinks. Du Bois describes his experience as living in a veil with whites on one side and blacks on the other. Himself having been able to go to university and having overcome the three temptations of a black life (hate, despair, and doubt) had given him a unique vantage point. He uses this point of view to write the book to in his words “Leaving, then, the world of the white man, I have stepped within the Veil, raising it that you may view faintly its deeper recesses, the meaning of its religion, the passion of its human sorrow, and the struggle of its greater souls.” Overall, a very interesting, well written and balanced take on the current standing of the race problem in 1903 and still seems very relevant today. ...

In this book David Stannard sets out to explain how the conquest of the Americas was the worst genocide in history. This book tells the story of pre-America in a much different light than how our history book explained it. Full of new information and insights overturning old, preconceived notions. For example, many thought that the population of both north and south America was around 20ish million pre-Columbus. New figures put that number at closer to 100 million. In addition, the common theory is that homo sapiens crossed into America via a now submerged land bridge that connects Asia and Alaska. Initially thinking was that this would put people in the Americas around 12,000BC, but newer evidence dates some artifacts in Mexico to 20,000 years prior to that. Which means there were already civilizations in place prior to the agricultural revolution. This and many more interesting facts are found in this overall depressing book. I will say the author is high atop his horse as he lays out all the atrocities committed by the conquistadors and early American settlers. Overall seeming to show a complete lack of understanding of human nature in a given context. This led to the writing style being unnecessarily preachy at times. The overall value and interest of the book made up for this though so I would still recommend it. It is easy to judge the past instead of learning from it. ...

This book has been on my list for a long time. A very entertaining short story written by the same guy who wrote 1984. The story takes place on a farm where a pig, shortly before his death, prophesied about a day when the animals would unite and overthrow their human farmer overlords and run the farm themselves. This prophecy comes to pass a couple years after the prophet’s death. The story then follows the conditions and developments that take place at the newly “freed” farm. The story on the whole is very well written and carries a similar sense of despair as 1984 did. Written shortly after WW2 it was Orwell’s unpopular (at the time) critique of the Bolshevik revolution and the new USSR. I feel like this book as well as 1984 gets taken out of context and applied to all types of movements to greater and lesser degrees of accuracy. While this book was written critiquing communists, I don’t think the point was a critique of communism per se, but more a critique of censorship and ideologies. Overall great/ easy read.

This book was pretty interesting definitely full of things that make you think, but honestly, I feel like I understood less than half. Nietzsche’s writing style seems to take for granted that you understand what a lot of loaded words mean when he says them. So before i read this I did an overview of his ideas and also this being the second book of his i read it helped to make somethings be clearer, but many of his thoughts seem too internalized for me to understand at this stage. They are also so wrapped up in responses to various other ideas I don’t know much about, that they come off often as riddles. But it is funny in reading through a book like this where you read riddle after riddle, to then come across something that you’ve experienced in your own life and immediately get exactly what he is saying. “The reader ready for the writer”. That being said this book is very aggressive against pretty much every prior philosopher on the grounds that many of them without their own knowledge were propounding a sort of “slave morality”. The theme of slave vs master morality is really the central theme of this book. The idea of going beyond good and evil is to understand them not as opposites but different routes to the same thing. What is this thing? Nietzsche would say it is “the will to power”. I won’t go into exactly what he means by that but oversimplified it’d probably be better understood as “the will to self-expression/realization”. This book covers a lot of ground but has a sort of interlude in it which was my favorite part. It’s a sort of shower thoughts channel for Nietzsche, just full of great one-liners. So, I imagine this book will get better the more that the reader understands and has experienced. I look forward to re-reading at some point in the future.

This book is where the phrase Catch-22 came from. A friend of mine recommended the TV show and I got it all twisted for a book recommendation, so I listened to the book. This book is set in an island in the Mediterranean nearing the end of World War 2. Centered around a group of bomber pilots who are pretty much over fighting and just want to go home but their superior officer keeps moving the goal lines on how many combat missions they have to fly before they can go home. There is this a way in which the pilots can go home early. They have to be declared crazy by the base doctor. If they are declared crazy by the doctor, they can go home. The doctor asks you one simple question. “Do you want to get out of combat duty?” This question is the catch 22. Because if you say you do want to get out of duty then that proves that you are sane because you are worried about your safety. Whereas if you say you do not want to get out of combat, they never turn down volunteers, so they send you into combat. To be honest this book was equal parts stressful and funny to me. Picture this book being set in the “greatest generation” setting with more of a “Vietnam” attitude. There are no heroes in this book just mindless bureaucrats and people who incredibly adept at getting out of work. Whereas this is comical it also reminds me too much of real-life people getting out of work which stresses me out.

Don Quixote is hailed by many as the best work of fiction ever written. While I’m not sure I’d go that far, it is impressive that a book written in the 1600s can still be funny, entertaining, and not terribly dated 400 years later. This book was a lot of fun to read. Don Quixote of La Mancha and his trusty squire, Sancho Panza, get into all sorts of hijinks as they travel around the Spanish countryside. Don Quixote is convinced he is a knight errant, and that all the stories about knight errantry that were told previously actually happened. This leads him into some very interesting and ironic situations. One of the most interesting things about this book is that, while everyone he comes into contact with almost immediately recognizes that he is insane, there is still some magnetic quality about the nobility of his character that causes people to like him. Additionally, even though he was insane, to some extent his madness created the reality that he believed in and gave him meaningful experiences that he would have missed out on if he hadn’t believed in knight errantry. This was a long book, maybe a touch too long, but was never dry.

Umph old baby Kierkegaard really stops you in your tracks and makes you look closely at a story you’ve heard a million times but points out that you’ve never actually understood it. As you can probably tell from the cover the story is of Abraham and Isaac. The main question of the book is what makes Abraham the “Father of Faith” and not a murderer? That question is so obvious but why has it never been talked about in any sermon other than the cursory “God said so?”. Kierkegaard wonders this as well. He spends the first section of the book elaborating on the insanity of request. He then describes his version of what faith is and why he’s never found anyone (including himself) that has it. Clearly, I can’t convey an accurate picture of what he was trying to explain in a couple lines but the gist of it (as I understood it) is that true faith requires a dual movement of the soul. The first movement is that of infinite resignation. That is to say releasing attachments that you have. The second movement is the infinite expectation by means of the absurd. This sort of reminds me of Schrodinger’s cat situation. In which one has given something up but at the same time has complete confidence that they will get it back, but that expectation never gets old or inhibits the resignation. Needless to say, it’s a complex idea which I am sure that I am bungling. The book then continues in a short investigation on the ethics of what Abraham did. In the epilogue of the book, he wraps up things nicely where he is talking about his belief that faith is “the highest passion of man” and that perhaps like love is an end to itself. Thus moving past faith, he thinks is part of the human tendency to always ask “what’s next?”. He illustrates this with this story at the very end of the book that has really stuck in my head: ...